How does pulling out of NATO and raising consumer prices by 55% make America great again?
The Brexit vote ranked the British economy and is estimated to lose thousands of British jobs as it is implemented. Remain never made this basic bread and butter argument. Instead it vilified the supporters of Brexit as intolerant racist morons who needed to be told how to vote by their betters. This is the same campaign Hillary is running, which is why a potential landslide election is still razor close in too many swing states.
This question puts the onus on Trump to defend his economic policies which the media doesn’t report on and most Americans are ignorant of. They vote their wallet and their children. Hillary has to educate the public on how Trump will drastically raise taxes and prices and why he is an appeaser of Americas enemies posing as a hawk. And all she has to do is quote Mitt Romney:
First, the economy: If Donald Trump’s plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into a prolonged recession.
A few examples: His proposed 35% tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war that would raise prices for consumers, kill export jobs, and lead entrepreneurs and businesses to flee America. His tax plan, in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and to honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt. So even as Donald Trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for American workers and for American families.
35% tariff, Trumps own number, combined with the 25% national sales tax that his “fair tax” is funded by.
Picture the MasterCard ad:
“Everything you can buy under a President Trump.
Single Bic Pen: $5.50
Big Mac: $10
Xbox: $600
IPhone: 1,500
Toyota Corolla: 40,000
Voting to protect your wallet from President Trump: priceless.”
jconway says
My opponent will raise your taxes and is weak on the Soviets. The only distinction is that this year that line of attack is entirely accurate.
Christopher says
David Cameron made a positive case for Remain on a weekly basis and I never heard him call anyone racist. Then again, I remain baffled as to what Clinton campaign you are watching since it doesn’t match the one I’m watching. Clinton IS doing something I was hoping for, running ads with Trump’s greatest quotes, but with the twist of showing children watching them on TV and making a point that he is setting a horrible example. I also assume you and she know that any reference to “the Soviets” is anachronistic and would be laughed at.
jconway says
Which his enemies and supporters agree on. To the supporters it’s endearing. It’s not making the bread and butter case that he will drastically raise taxes on everyday items to the point that they will be unaffordable. That hits people in their pocket book. And he will destroy a 50 year bipartisan foreign policy that successfully has contained Soviet expansion.
I haven’t heard either of these cases made by her or her surrogates. This is how she wins over Republicans and independents, not making fun of him for making fun of everybody else. That’s the Jeb! playbook, not the Reagan playbook she should be borrowing from.
As long as they are sending Spetznaz forces to take over satellite states, they are the Soviets to me. She can call them whatever she wants, but make no mistake. They are a serious threat and Europeans are right to be concerned he would destroy one of the most successful collective security organizations in history.
Christopher says
I’m sorry, but this is exasperating. I have heard HRC at a variety of fora talk about how she is fighting for the average person, maybe not specifically on consumer prices yet, but the theme is there. Sounding like a broken record, but Jeb NEVER took it to Trump this way, leading Trump to refer to him as low energy! Yes, I suspect we’ll hear pushback on NATO and she has already run ads mocking him for getting his military intel and opinions by “watching the shows”.
jconway says
Has she said Trump will raise prices by 55%? Taxes by 25%? Has she said he will be weak when it comes to containing our adversaries? Directly, not implication but directly stated those sentences? I haven’t seen anyone mention the 25% and 35% since Romney, I haven’t seen her or anyone from her campaign directly mention NATO or hit him for Putin associations.
Until she starts doing that, this will be a long campaign where her most fervent partisans insist she is already doing everything she possibly can, and those of us hitting her on tactics, not policy or qualifications, must be secretly sexist or secretly Republican to critique her strategy. That dynamic sounds awfully familiar, and it didn’t help the last two times it happened around here.
Christopher says
…regarding economics. She hasn’t minced words when it comes to foreign policy though, and there have been any number of appearances on this and no, I haven’t kept a running track of links. I really think you need to give her a little more credit. After all, she’s been doing this for decades.
Al says
or even believe that their jobs would be at risk in a Trump Presidency. All they care is that the man screaming at them, rabidly, about Mexicans and Muslims, and everything foreign, agrees with them and is scratching their itch. BTW, J, did you mean to say the Brexit vote “tanked” the British economy in your post?
jconway says
And we are the minority of the minority that do on this side of the pond. The basic case was, we are losing money and paying taxes to Europe that could be spent here. The fact that this case one means it was more persuadable than Remains. Similarly, Hillary will never convince swing voters she is trustworthy or cares about them. She can convince voters you’ll have Soviet tanks in Warsaw and $1500 iPhones under Trump.
Christopher says
…other British political dialogue then either and I referred to PMQs because that is where we would get most of that. I don’t think $1500 iPhones will sound credible to anyone (including me to be honest) and raising the specter of “Soviet” domination of Eastern Europe will sound as odd as Gerald Ford’s claim that they were NOT dominating Eastern Europe in 1976. Besides, I don’t want her pandering and playing to fears with just a casual relationship to the facts – that’s Donald Trump’s job!
centralmassdad says
Sheesh.
Putin rewards business interests that support Putin and punishes those who do not support Putin. Kind of like Trump has threatened to do with Amazon.com, Apple, and much of Silicon Valley. Donald Trump, you may have noted, has something of a poor record of re-paying creditors over the years, and he and his businesses have, at this point, poor credit. Where does he get his financing for projects lately? Seems like from Russian oligarchs that are favored by Putin.
Until last week, the GOP made QUITE a point of criticizing Obama’s reluctance to arm Ukraine against Russian military aggression. That was the one thing that Trump actually zapped from the new platform.
He advocates abrogating the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949– which would achieve the most ambitious Soviet/Russian foreign policy goal since 1949, and would free Russia to re-create, by military force, the Iron Curtain.
Winning the Cold War, and navigating the endgame in a way that avoided catastrophe and permitted freedom in Eastern Europe is the single greatest Presidential achievement in my lifetime, and is without a doubt the largest legacy feather in the Bush family cap. And Trump wants to give it away, because. Is it any wonder they aren’t in Cleveland?
Christopher says
Yes, Putin’s bad news and we absolutely should call Trump out on his admiration for him. I just think to raise the specter of “Soviet” aggression makes it sound like we slept through the events of 1989-1992.
centralmassdad says
.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
That would be Trump’s strategy, to tie his campaign into the Brexit debate, and re-fight that fight – but dumbed down and subdued to his own level. “History repeats … first as tragedy, then as farce”.
johntmay says
Zero Wage Growth and a crumbling middle class
Continued “status” as the only developed nation without health care as a right.
Spending more on prisons than on schools…
But look, in exchange for all of the above, you get cheap Bic Pens and Two Big Macs for $10.
Sounds like a good deal…?
Hillary has to go one step farther and tell us how her administration will take us out the the economic horse latitudes that many of us have lived in for the past 40+ years.
jconway says
The small sliver of voters who haven’t made up their mind are low information and need a basic reason to decide this race. Having one candidate raise consumer prices by 55% and threaten global security is a slam dunk reason to vote against that candidate.
Where I agree with you is that our down ballot candidates have to make the populist cases that they will advance working families in Congress. Quinnipiac has Toomey, Portman, Rubio and Ayotte moving ahead of their competitors which means McConnell’s strategy is working. They simply can’t be anti-Trump, they go to make a case that their specific Senator is a tool of Wall Street and they are not.
Hillary can begin to make that case too. But for a quick sound bite, this simpler issue is very compelling to someone who doesn’t care about social or cultural issues and hasn’t been paying attention. And I’m dumbfounded she hasn’t seized on it.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
I think there are a lot of voters caught in the middle, who are informed but don’t like either of the two, and who with dither until the last moment on whether to even go vote.
When a significant number of voters is dispirited and stays home, that could tip the election.
johntmay says
Do you honestly think that this race does not have serious populist undertones?
Threats of the price of a bic pen doubling are little match to the reality that more and more people are falling into hard times.
Hillary has to come up with a plan. Actually, she has but she’s not talking about it too much. And that bothers me as well. Here profit sharing tax credit plan a bold step in this direction, but is it something that the .1% and Wall Street does not like and so, something she is quiet about?
centralmassdad says
I am right there with you on this argument. Putin is seeking to establish a neo-Soviet empire, by military force, and Trump’s team has helped him, and he has already said it isn’t worth it for the US to bother with NATO obligations, if the target of Russian military force is in eastern Europe.
But I also think you have to do it in a way that doesn’t send all the Bernie people– who don’t much care about security matters and would love to see a return to 19th century economic nationalism– into an hysterical fit. At least until August.
merrimackguy says
Europe or the US?
I think the answer to that question determines where you fall on the Trump-Clinton foreign policy spectrum.
Russia is not even in the top ten economies, and Germany-UK-France are 4-5-6 and Italy is 8. Obama’s not wrong when he says Europe dropped the ball on Libya, and Trump’s not wrong when he says they should hold up their end with NATO. They should be able to handle it, but why do it when they know the US will?
Christopher says
What happens in the ME often has direct consequences for us and Ukraine is the most blatant example in a long time of one country invading another for the purpose of territorial conquest. These should be joint efforts, but the US should be a key player.
merrimackguy says
I get it vs. China. If we don’t stand up the risk is the other countries will fall under their sway. China is big, they are small.
Russia is not big from a power standpoint. There’s no indication that their military is capable, their resources significant, their people jingoistic (one of the things that makes China more dangerous is the whole pride angle).
The EU and Turkey are in a slow (estimated 20 yr) progression towards admission. They should have leverage there.
20 years ago we jumped in and fixed the Balkans. I don’t think we can/should do that anymore when we have partners who could do it as well.
SomervilleTom says
Have you been paying attention to the events of the last week in Turkey?
It appears to me that Mr. Erdogan is doing all in his power to seize control of Turkey and transform it into another Muslim nation. Many sources suggest that the “coup” itself was orchestrated (or at least allowed to happen) by Mr. Erdogan in order to provide a pretext for his power play.
Turkey is moving AWAY, not towards, membership in the EU. Turkey is also a key player in our actions against ISIS in Syria.
I disagree that our partners could or should solve this problem, and I disagree with the premise that we WANT them to have the ability to do so. Unless, of course, the second part of the premise is that we somehow pass the baton of defending freedom and democracy to one or several of those partners.
How do you feel about the EU being the standard international currency, and German being the standard language of international trade?
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
‘Russia is not big from a power standpoint. There’s no indication that their military is capable…’
I beg to differ. Russia has 50,000 odd strong force doing exercises by the border of the Baltic countries. NATO has a few thousand to face them – just enough to serve as human bait.
Russia also has no difficulty losing soldiers in battle. Ability to sustain injury carries weight when speaking of military might.
They have functioning atomic weapons. Top of the line tanks, rockets. Fleet in the Black Sea, the Baltic.
What the US has to keep Russia in check is the stick of economic sanctions – and the carrot of cooperation in bilaterally beneficial matters. But the US can’t match the boots on the ground Russia has at ready.
SomervilleTom says
First, by the time Barack Obama took office, there was no viable answer in Libya. Mr Quadaffi made sure that there was no moderate opposition to his government. The quasi-military organizations that did exist were loyal to Iran and dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama was willing to withstand accurate headlines along the lines of “US President Arms Iranian Allies”.
Our problem in the ME after our disastrous blunder of removing Saddam Hussein is that there are no indigenous groups for us to support that are not steadfastly opposed to Israel. So long as we support Israel, we will be the “foreign aggressor” in the rest of the ME.
Regarding NATO, we have quite explicitly demanded that we be the dominant controller of NATO. The very purpose of NATO when it was formed was to ensure that America never again had to go to war against a competitively-armed European power like Germany. We went to war against a heavily-armed Germany in 1917 and again in 1941. Several generations of Americans explicitly worked to prevent a recurrence. For similar reasons, we have always ensured that Japan never acquires a competitive military.
I’m therefore not sure what you mean when write that Donald Trump is “not wrong when he says they should hold up their end with NATO”. Do you REALLY mean that Europe should have a military presence capable of intervening where the US has failed?
Just to cite one consequence — suppose we stipulate the existence of such a military. What do we then do when said military announces its decision to enforce a decision by the International Court charging George W. Bush and Richard Cheney with war crimes? Will we stand by and do nothing as that armed EU military takes Mr. Cheney into custody on his next trip overseas?
Like it or not, when the Soviet Union collapsed we became the ONLY democratic superpower in the world. Several US presidents — including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — strove mightily to somehow bring the Israelis to a sustainable arrangement in the ME. Radical elements of each side of that conflict have succeeded in destroying those negotiations.
In my view, the K-Mart rule VERY MUCH applies to our situation in the ME. AMERICA broke it — nobody else. ISIS exists because of our blunder. The millions of refugees fleeing ISIS are the DIRECT result of our blunder. The impossible situation in Libya and Syria is the direct of our failed and self-serving foreign policy in the region for GENERATIONS — long before Barack Obama was elected. It was, after all, George W. Bush who announced the “rehabilitation” of Qadaffi, with great fanfare, when Mr. Bush needed some sign of support for his catastrophic invasion of Iraq.
It is selfish and hypocritical — not to mention deceitful — for us to now attempt to shift the blame or burden to anyone except us.
Which is why it is entirely in character for Donald Trump and the GOP to do just that.
merrimackguy says
as do many other Americans.
SomervilleTom says
I’m not surprised that you disagree.
Which parts do you dispute? What do you propose instead?
merrimackguy says
Of course all the issues are complicated.
Obama turned over a stable country (at the time) to al-Malaki. He alienated Sunnis and ISIS came together.
If you want you can trace it back to Bush, or maybe further back to the British and French.
The Europeans encouraged our actions in Libya and then didn’t take steps to stay involved in the aftermath.
Just because NATO was once useful doesn’t mean it will always have the same value. Put the shoe of the other foot- You’re Putin and the US is behind organizing a military alliance involving dozens of countries and right up to your border. Happy or unhappy about that?
You’ve got the Saudis leading a coalition in Yemen. Good for them.
Iran and proxies are fighting ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. Great.
I could go on but what’s the point? Unlikely you would ever agree because your world view is so different from mine.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
It’s not good that Yemen is thoroughly trashed. Or that Iran is fighting openly in Syria. The US does have resposibility to maintsin a semblance of international order, and for that, the military must be strong. Iraq has taught us that invasion creates havoc; Syria has taught us that standing back creates havoc. The lesson from Syria is very different from the lesson in Iraq.
SomervilleTom says
Are you really making the argument that Iraq under Mr. al-Maliki was stable?
George W. Bush removed Saddam Hussein from power using a collection of flagrantly fabricated lies. ISIS was born in the chaos and aftermath of that decision. Neither the British nor the French invaded Iraq. We did that, on our own.
Perhaps our world views are very different. I believe that we have an obligation to address and resolve the problems we caused. You apparently want the rest of the civilized world to clean up after the mess that George W. Bush created.
Christopher says
…pretty sure the British were right there with us on the Iraqi invasion. I also recall that I would always feel better about what we were doing after hearing Tony Blair justify it as opposed to GWB.
SomervilleTom says
George W. Bush told the same lies to Tony Blair that he told to America. Tony Blair was foolish enough to believe them — and was unceremoniously sacked by the UK electorate when the truth became clear.
jconway says
Blair lied to you and Bush knew he was lying to you and goaded him in for that reason.
scott12mass says
Iran changed when the shah was overthrown. Saddam wasn’t going to be dictator forever so Iraq would eventually have changed. These countries are not fertile ground for a representative democracy. In Iraq we lost people, we learned our lesson. As tragic as it is at least in Syria we’re not losing people.
The muslim brotherhood was fighting egyptian authorities in the 60’s. We’re better off standing back and helping more democratic or nationalistic players if they survive, if the religious forces win disengage.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
We’re not losing people in Syria… But we are in Paris, Munich, Orlando. It’s a result of neglecting Syria, and allowingvthe civil war to fester.
SomervilleTom says
Starting in 2008, what would you have had us do differently in Syria?
Should we have provided arms and support for some opposition groups? Which ones? The issue we faced was that by 2008, every group that had even a tiny chance of success was (a) an ally of Iran and (b) was adamantly opposed to the continued existence of Israel.
So … what do you know that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Barack Obama did not?
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
I don’t know what was to be done different in Syria, in terms of specific steps – and it’s unclear how much pull the US had in the events. But letting Da’esh acquire territory was a mistake.
Biden had the idea of having Iraq partition itself along ethnic & religious lines early on in the Obama administration – sort of like the India/Pakistan partition. That was, in retrospect, not such a bad idea.
It’s not an easy question, there are no straight forward answers.
scott12mass says
Pull out the troops. When a western-leaning secular group emerges we assist them asserting their independence with air support (which will increasingly be drones). The whole area will re-draw the lines of control based on their own history, ie there will be a Kurdistan which we will support.
As long as they support Israel’s right to exist we will support and allow them to exist. The ones who are at war with the west (I feel there are many) will stay busy trying to establish their homeland. If we “fix” the region by imposing order (like we did after WWII) we will only create resentment.
They need their own 1776 (and we can be like the French).
SomervilleTom says
What the Obama administration did NOT do — unlike its predecessor — is follow a catastrophic “ready-fire-aim” tactic.
We seem to agree that:
1. There was no obvious way forward in Syria, and
2. The US had very little influence over events there
I do not agree that the US “[let] Da’esh acquire territory” — I suggest that we had no realistic ability to stop it.
Joe Biden was suggesting that partitioning MUCH earlier, prior to the 2003 invasion. He was correct then, and I agree that he was probably correct while Vice President. Sadly, by 2008, it was too late. The china was already broken. The seeds of ISIS were already germinating.
It is precisely because it is not an easy question, and because there are no straight forward answers (and perhaps no “answers” at all) that I reject your criticism. We did not “neglect” anybody or “allow the civil war to fester” during the administration of Barack Obama.
In my view, she and Barack Obama did the best they could in an already impossible situation.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
Multiple factors in ISIS growing up. One, Erdogan’s Turley open border, Sunni-brotherhood attitude to the Syrian resistance, including ISIS. Another, Saudi and Kuweiti sponsorship, early on.
The US did disengage and let this fester. This was intentional – and there were many, myself included, who argued for disengagement in wake of the Iraq invasion fiasco. That was a mistake.
jconway says
And I don’t disagree with MG that we need to make NATO allies pay their fair share. That is something Bob Gates and Barack Obama agreed on. And it was even in the Jeb! platform. Mr. Trump is proposing a full withdrawal from NATO. Very different discussion.
petr says
… you continue to normalize his, largely, off-the-cuff responses. Acting as though he has invested the time in an articulate plan, rather than a series of blustering synaptic mis-firings legitImizes him in a manner he is uniquely unable to do on his own.
Donald Trump is a clown. An honest-to-gosh floppy footed, crazy-haired, painted goofball whose every utterance lies at a clean right angle to reality. Maybe some people have been holding out hope that he’s really Buttons, with a generous heart and years of schooling behind him, but he ain’t. He’s an utter fool.
The only thing Clinton needs to ask is ‘For real?‘ It might not win her the election, but will be the only honest question she can ask of the electorate.
jconway says
Actually envision a world where we surrender Eastern Europe to Russia and raise taxes by 50%. This is how Reagan won 49 of 50 states by lying and saying that world was Mondale’s. Trump is actually saying that’s the world he wants, and nobody is talking about it. We are already winning nearly 100% of the black vote, 75% of the Latino vote. If we want to win IA, keep PA, MI, OH and FL it will be by telling middle America their taxes will be doubled and the Russians will be on the Danube. Worked for Ron, it’ll work for Hillary. And this time she isn’t exaggerating…
petr says
… Trump doesn’t know what he wants. He’s not deliberate. He’s not thoughtful. He’s not articulating profound thoughts. Acting as though he is serious gives other people justification to also act as though he is serious (ref. Clothes, Emperors New)
That’s exactly MY point.
Trump is belching out whatever comes to mind without regard to consequences, implications, reactions or follow-on effects…
… and that’s worse.
That’s MUCH worse than a deliberate decision to pull out of NATO. That’s much much WORSE than a deliberate effort to raise taxes by 50%.
Stop giving him cover by acting as though he’s just the next wonk standing in the progressives’ way. He’s a dumb wrench aimed haphazardly at the heart of the whole machinery.
jconway says
Verbatim. And those words do matter, just as Obama saying red line mattered, because the world looks to America for leadership. Saying he is a buffoon who doesn’t mean half the shit he says doesn’t change the fact that what he is saying has never been said before by a major party nominee and severely undermines the credibility of our country’s foreign policy.
JimC says
This election HINGES on what we say about Trump on BMG.
Loose lips sink ships!
jconway says
I am saying that I strongly disagree with those that feel Trump is so unappealing and unacceptable he has it in the bag. I think that’s a lousy attitude to bring to this campaign, and it sets canvassers and campaigners up for failure.
paulsimmons says
Per CNN/ORC’s instant polling:
Overall Reaction:
Very Positive: 57%
Somewhat positive: 18%
Negative: 24%
Affect on voting for Trump:
More Likely: 56%
Less likely: 10%
Not much affect: 32%
paulsimmons says
Who also saw the implications of the poll.
Trump knows how to exploit fears of the future. Democrats can only counter him with a vision for the future—a vision that respects those fears and addresses them. America is not a banana republic, but it is a vulnerable republic. Trump and his backers will seek to exploit that vulnerability—just as they exploited the vulnerabilities of an increasingly delusional Republican Party. Democrats must name and shame Trump’s politics of exploitation, and then they must counter it with a new politics that speaks to the better angels identified by the first Republican president: a fellow named Lincoln who would not recognize what has become of his party